New York Times, 12/27/97, page D2 "Worries About the Rush to Mutual Funds"
After reporting the results of a study about the percent of American Households owning sock funds, the article stated:
"The survey had an error rate of 2 percent, meaning that 95 times out of 100 a similar survey would produce results within 2 percentage points of the current data."
1) It is great that a popular paper is trying to explain the meaning of the results of a study.
2) Am I right that this is not a correct interpretation of a confidence interval? [if they changed "within 2 percentage points of the current data" to "within 2 percentage points of the actual data" it might be a reasonable attempt to explain a difficult concept]